Pro-life atheists

[Mudhammam]

That seems like a fallacious, and dangerous, argument to make. What's the difference between that and asking: How many descendants of World War II's millions of victims might now be suffering? Maybe wars in general do future generations a favor by sparing so many a possibility of life? To suggest that abortion is preferable to adoption because the child MIGHT suffer by his adoptive parents seems similarly unjustified and potentially harmful as policy, personal or otherwise.

Comparing abortion to genocide? Really?

Eh, not quite. I was comparing the rationale--nothing more, nothing less-- that you cited in reply to this:

My dear kid brother, would not be here had his 12 year old mother aborted him. She had him, gave him up for adoption.

I didn't see anything having to do with abuse there. Yes, child abuse is horrible but to imply that the solution is more abortions, seems like I said, potentially dangerous. Only in that I do think it can be compared to the rationale used to justify genocide, or perhaps less extreme but still horrible, forced eugenics.